Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manga-gaga

This webcomic was deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manga-Gaga, I suggest you read the arguments there, as this nomination largely remains the same. Found here, the comic shares the same webhost as Cosmic hero, nominated below and their Alexa rank combined is 2.6 million. "Manga gaga" generates 80 unique hits on Google, none of them a decent professional source, why is this? Maybe cause it's entirely non notable. Hahnchen 00:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be speedily deleted as a recreation? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An admin would need to verify that it was indeed the same article, since they can access the previous versions, but assuming nothing has changed it should be. Peyna 01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same article, the older one was in fact lengthier. - Hahnchen 01:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Hopox 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim of notability. Rohirok 17:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per previous delete. Alexa rank does not matter, it does not meet the criteria in WP:WEB... off with its head. --Kunzite 19:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete This article does not assert its notability Benon 22:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. G4 wouldn't apply here, as the article is not similar to the old article. Naconkantari 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am unable to see that an encyclopedia article may be written on this subject —Encephalon 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-Delete per previous AfD and above. Non-notable and unfortunate that the creator was able to re-post this article by changing the title to "Manga-gaga" from "Manga-Gaga". --S0uj1r0 07:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-Delete objection Mangagaga was deleted becuase it had the wrong name; and the user that created it (me) didn't knew how to move it; so he/she created the same article with the name of manga-gaga and asked wikipedia's people to delet the first one (the one with the name Mangagaga) --Lol man
• Didn't knew comixpedia existed Sorry; i agree with you to delet this ... --Lol man
• Delete per above, just not notable enough · XP · 02:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic hero

Non notable webcomic, found here, on the same webhost as Manga-gaga (nominated above). An alexa rank of 2.6 million between the 2 comics. No assertion of notability and no external sources. - Hahnchen 00:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Hopox 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim of notability. Rohirok 17:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank should never be considered for keeping or deleting. --Kunzite 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable web comic Benon 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Hahnchen. —Encephalon 05:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --S0uj1r0 07:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Anthony5429 07:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the same i said for mangaga-gaga; i think comixpedia would be a better pleace for a (NON-POPULAR) web comic like this one. --Lol man 21:09, 13 eptember 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer cartoon studio. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening logos of the MGM cartoon department

More original research featuring various opening title cards. Serves no encyclopedic purpose; better suited for a fansite. FuriousFreddy 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OR delete per FuriousFreddy and previous AfDs with similar topics at hand. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not particularly useful and really just describes the images. Formatting unappealing, and has also has some problems with the tone of writing. In addition, much of the page is slightly altered content from this page. Bob talk 08:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Leidiot 10:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Same reasons as the above, generally poorly written, even despite my contributions and doesn't really require its own page. Perhaps better to incorporate some of this in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Animation instead? MartinP1983 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet. There's no encyclopedic value in analyzing the opening title cards from cartoons. --FuriousFreddy 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into MGM cartoon department which doesn't really have any treatment on the Logo outside of two of the images. There is some encyclopedic merit to the material as a history of one of the world's most recognizable logos but like above, I don't think it needs it's own page. I agree that the format needs to be cleaned up. Ideally I would say a two boxes of 4 with smaller then thumbnail pics should be used with a paragraph to the side detailing how the logo has evolved. Agne 15:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We've deleted similar galleries from other articles after such proposed "merges". --FuriousFreddy 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though it needs to cite its sources for the background information behind each image, these opening logos are and iconic part of MGM history, and thus worthy of treatment in an encyclopedia. Rohirok 17:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Agne. Not sure I follow the alleged problem with "original research" here; the released cartoons themselves are an authoritative primary source for this material. The history should be kept somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet. You can't use the cartoons themselves as a reference for an article like this, because you are analyzing them yourself to create the article. Therefore, it is original research; you're not referencing an actual scholarly work. --FuriousFreddy 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While not titled properly, this is article is essentially a list. It is lacking reference and looking at the article the items that are normally the first line in each section ("This logo was first used in ....") is what's most pressing for a ref. The rest is just a description of what the logo looks like that correlates with the photo to the side. From WP:OR it clearly says "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments.". The description of the logos proposes nothing and you can't even stretch that to be synthesis. Overall the OR argument is weak. I think the much stronger arguement is context and the fact that an entire article on the logos is not needed. As the majority of editors here on this AfD agree, there is some merit in maintain information on one of the world's most iconic logos and it's therefore better off to be merged. Agne 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research because it is an analysis of established facts which cannot be sourced from a reliable website. Besides that, there is absolutely no merit in retain this, or anything similar, on what is (was?) supposed to be a reliable reference source, and anyone who knows anything about scholarly writing will tell you so. "One of the world's most iconic logos?" We already have a (piss-poor) article on Leo the Lion (MGM); why do we need two bad articles? --FuriousFreddy 19:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, with all original pre-1952 MGM cartoon elements no longer existing, the jumbled re-relase schedule of MGM cartoons, and their re-editing and plastering-over of opening logos of said cartoons, there is absolutely no way this article (or any merger) could be factually accurate, as the source information just doesn't exist. --FuriousFreddy 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. This has some encyclopedic merit, although i agree it needs it sources cited. Benon 22:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial details do not require a whole article. Batmanand | Talk 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Animation as per Agne. --LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 23:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial filmcruft. --S0uj1r0 07:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonencyclopedic trivial fancruft. It would be nice if the logospotters would find another site to bother. —tregoweth (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (condition) Are the old ones even under copyright legally anymore? if no: merge into gallery on MGM main; otherwise: nuke. · XP · 02:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above users. Fair use images and they would serve well in the cartoon department article. I don't know where the "Original Research" part comes from. There is no claim being made. It's just a compliation of images. 205.157.110.11 09:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep due to unanimous consensus and single-purpose account (seemingly) nominator. Punkmorten 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!!!Fuck You!!!

non notable music album --65eb 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - What's the problem? This was released on a bona fide major label, the band actually produced albums that sold and they've toured in both the US and Europe. Also, it looks like you registered an account just to make this AfD. Care to explain? My Alt Account 00:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the user above's succinct explanation --W guice 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is the title (the !!! part of the title) within appropriate naming conventions? Peyna 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. Since it's part of the official title, than quite probably yes. -- W guice 11:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per My Alt Account --Wildnox 01:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: Notable album by a very notable band. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination.--Húsönd 02:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Crudely titled perhaps, but till a relatively notable album. (I keep hoping something with this title gets nominated for a Grammy, but alas that has yet to be.) 23skidoo 06:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolftime

Contested PROD. Delete as this production company fails WP:CORP. No verifiability from third-party reliable sources; all of three Google hits (merely searching for the title gives mostly irrelevant results) that point solely to this entity's Geocities website. WP:NFT and/or WP:VANITY may also apply per the intimate knowledge that they premiered [their] latest film, Silhouettes, at a Bay Area high school on September 7, 2006. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominated: Silhouettes, the film created by this group. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The company and film are not "illegitimate", merely non-notable. Seriously, these are films that only a tiny number of people will ever see or even hear of. The fact that a web search doesn't find any of them outside wofltime's geocities page says that pretty much no one has even taken notice of them, and that they, and their awards, are unverifiable. Wikipedia does not exist to help encourage or publicize unknown entrepreneurs, teenage or otherwise. Fan-1967 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Respect has nothing to do with it. Verifiability is a policy on Wikipedia, and WP:WEB and WP:CORP are consensus-driven guidelines for inclusion of articles on websites and companies. You are welcome to address the points addressed therein, and then (more imporantly) provide verifiability through reliable sources indicating that the site or company meets one or more of these points, in order to persuade others to recommend keeping this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Otherise, discussions are extremely hard to follow. The links that have already been posted, WP:WEB and WP:CORP, explain the standards. Your company, website and films do not meet the standards. No press coverage, no public attention, no verifiability, no notability. I'm sorry if you feel that's harsh. Fan-1967 01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable and per nom. By the way, the films have been "published in film festivals"? How does that happen? Is that an attempt to make "shown at film festivals" sound like it meets the cited criterion? Hmmm... - W guice 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cuz a free encyclopedia is a good idea, but a free encyclopedia with quality control is an even better one. - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Very much depends on the festival. Sundance, Cannes - yes. Others - assess by situation - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Claiming that an article would not harm anybody is an oft-rehashed tactic for retaining articles that do not meet the goals of the project, which is to be an encyclopedia. Verifiability is a policy. You have been provided sufficient information to indicate what these articles need for them to be kept. You have made claims to notability; so source them. I apologize if that sounds harsh, but if these articles cannot meet that core requirement, then they will most certainly be deleted. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is not just your company. There are thousands of aspiring filmmakers trying to gain some exposure by listing their short films here. Films which may have been screened at a festival or two, but have hardly been reviewed anywhere, written up anywhere, noticed anywhere. Most have received more notice than your films, which seem to have received none at all. Wikipedia does not exist to promote unknown people or enterprises, but to document those which have already become notable. Fan-1967 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'll leave it to the other editors to determine whether it is too much of a stretch to suggest that User:Kevinw91 is the same "Kevin Walker" named in the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You've spent enough time trying to do that in the article itself. By the way, someone saying the company or film fails WP:VANITY isn't an ad hominem attack. S/he's not calling you vain, s/he's referring to a policy (that s/he didn't write) which happens to bear that name. What's the argumentative ethics term for being really disingenuous again? - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even if we were to set notability totally aside (which we won't), the #1 ironclad rule here is Verifiability from Reliable Sources. That one's non-negotiable. We have here an article written by you, about your company, and the only source is a website created by you. No other source is available to verify that these films have been shown anywhere. Fan-1967 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Taking you seriously is not the issue. Wikipedia does not exist to promote unknown ventures. Period. The result of this AfD was never in doubt from the moment it was posted. Continuing this discussion won't change it. Fan-1967 02:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're mistaken. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the link to our standard for companies has been repeatedly posted here. You've verified that one of your films was shown. Doesn't make it remotely notable. Nobody in the press wrote it up or commented on it. I'm sorry if our continuing this conversation gave you any impression that there was any chance for the articles. There never was. Fan-1967 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nothing further (such as a link to a encyclopedia policy or notability guideline) can be suggested that has not already been mentioned at least once herein. Whether you choose to take those suggestions or simply ignore them is up to you. I am recusing myself from the remainder of this discussion. Best of luck in the future. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No we won't. I have other things to do tonight, and I'll repeat: continuing this discussion will make no difference. We have policies. You don't like them. That's it. Best of luck. Fan-1967

• Delete per nom. --Aaron 04:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP zephyr2k 04:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Different Tack Have you been in a newspaper or magazine article, or is your film on imdb, or something that would imply that anyone other than you knows anything about this? You don't know if you have or not? Whenever I'm in the paper, my Mom cuts out the article and sends it to me, and so do 15 other people. Lots of times, the publisher will let you know if you have a mention. If you don't know whether you've been covered, than you probably haven't. Did these festivals have materials or webpages or anything like that? The problem isn't that you're writing about yourself; the problem is that only you have been writing about yourself. If you do, then you'll probably be fine. If not, then your company probably isn't ready to be included yet. rather than talking about WP:CORP or the badly named WP:Vanity policy, we probably should be talking about the verifyability argument. How can people find the more complete resources to back up this article? If they wanted to learn more about you, where would they go, other then to your own web page? GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both despite vigorous defense from creator; nonnotable film and production company. NawlinWiki 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Making the encyclopedia a tiny bit of a better place is enough for me. But hey - just to show there's no hard feelings, get notable enough and i'll write you up myself --W guice 11:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Apparently the website only gets 60 hits from around the world a day and only a few hundred people have seen the films. (btw, when I read the high concept description of Teen Planet, I couldn't help but think of the opening movie in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri !! I hereby give you permission to use that quote in future blurbs/advertising for that film. You're welcome. ) Bwithh 12:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. Marcus22 17:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. No references are provided to substantiate notability. Rohirok 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per Rohirok. --Guinnog 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Presently not notable. Indicators: Alexa traffic on wolftime.com has no ranking data (as of 09-Sep-2006 22:10 UTC) At the same time, Google returns about thirty links to the phrase "Wolftime Films" which appears to reduce to about four distinct sources, none which furnish independent commentary on notability. (one times out, one returns a 404 error, one is [wolftime.com] itself, one references the phrase "wolftime" in an unrelated context). Gosgood 21:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The last comment was by far the most constructive of them all. Wolftime is going through a major growth period at this time. I will currently agree with the deletion of both articles since Wolftime is presently non-notable. However, I may write up the article again about halfway through the year after film festival season has started and more material verifies the company as worthy of recognition on Wikipedia. I apologize for any trouble I may have caused, and invite you to view the newly released "Silhouettes" here so you can at least get an idea of the work my company does. My apologies, and thanks. Kevinw91

• • Kevin91, you might want to keep a backup of the work you've put in here before it is deleted. In the future, it may be a helpful reference if you're planning to put it up again. Good luck with you and your company. zephyr2k 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The awarding bodies were Danville International Children's Film Festival and Berkeley Video and Film Festival. 542 (115) ghits and 381 (172) ghits, respectively. (Cute film, thanks for the link, Kevin.) —BozoTheScary 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have posted references to the project page. It will be apparent that both films, "Teen Planet" and "The Kid Who Talked Too Much" are films of 5 minute length, submitted for competition. Can't vouch for the reknown of the festivals, but it would appear to be amateur (possibly school) projects. Ohconfucius 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This lengthy discussion established two things: The nomination is correct, and the page's creator doesn't value our time (or his) very highly. My Alt Account 09:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Foul. Ad hominem and uncalled for. —BozoTheScary 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The way this discussion has been conducted is a complete waste of time, I don't see a nicer way to say it. My Alt Account 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection That last comment, which accuses 'X' of an ad hominim (sic. hominem) attack is a clear ad hominem attack and must be struck from the record. If every user has the mentality of this individual then I'm off to make a cup of tea! Marcus22 08:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sass Hour

Vanity and Patent Nonsense Goldenrowley 00:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure it qualifies as patent nonsense (which would be speedyable), but it sure deserves deleteion. Peyna 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not nonsense, but not notable either. --Wildnox 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK struck patent nonsense. Still lacks notability. Goldenrowley 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable radio station. JIP | Talk 09:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Rohirok 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Whilst not patent nosense its not notable. Nor does the article assert notability Benon 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete How WP:VAIN. Anomo 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/VAIN Yeah. · XP · 02:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Gospels

Cystal Ball Goldenrowley 00:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Húsönd 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination dr.alf 07:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rohirok 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Wikipedia is not a crytsal ballBenon 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Yes, it is CB. Yes, the article is beyond awful. However, there is significant buzz for this: "clive barker" "scarlet gospels" gets 2790 (342) ghits. Astonishing for a book that is merely being anticipated. This is because of speculation that it will involve the death of the very notable Pinhead (Hellraiser). If Harry Potter 7 (book) survives a CB charge, this probably should, too. —BozoTheScary 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'll go one step further than BozoTheScary. This is a known and verifiable project, even if it isn't published yet, from a famous author. It's not CBism in that Barker is known to be working on it, ergo it exists in some form. But it does need clean-up! Bondegezou 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom despite BozoTheScary and Bondegezou. Wikipedia is not a hype rag, and just because the fact that he's writing it can be verified doesn't mean that anything else about it is verifiable. Once it's done and is notable in its own right, then it can be re-written, preferably citing sources when it is. --S0uj1r0 07:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept 7

Does not meet notability criteria per WP:MUSIC

I am also nominating the following related pages (band's albums):

• The End Of Time Project (redirect)
• The End of Time Project
• The Undeniable Constant --W guice 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Two albums, but they're apparently self-released, so a fail of WP:MUSIC per nom. --Daniel Olsen 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No major releases. Rohirok 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Daniel Olsen. Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, along with the corollary album articles. "And your little dog, too!" --S0uj1r0 07:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, though I still think it isn't notable, this is a clear WP:SNOW, no point in prolonging it. --Rory096 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6Q0B44E

Yes, it's on DYK, but it's a non-notable piece of space junk. 17 Google hits (4 unique) and no Google news hits. Though it supposedly had a mention in The Guardian, it was presumably not significant if it wasn't put online. Rory096 01:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Verifiable with coverage in a major British newspaper that gives a reasonable claim of notability. Being on the Internet is not a goods measure of significance, IMHO. Gwernol 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that it's verifiable. I haven't seen the mention in the Guardian, but the Harvard page and [1] basically just track the trajectory. The main source for this article is a Yahoo group, which doesn't seem too reliable to me. Also note that all of our notability guidelines specifically say a significant mention in the news, not just a one-line comment, which is what this seems to have been. --Rory096 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above notable, sources are reliable. No hits may be becuase of odd name. Coasttocoast 01:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above. --Daniel Olsen 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Jack (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason? --Rory096 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is notable and verifiable. If it is one of our rockets, that far out in an enduring orbit it is notable and might one day be identified as an Apollo stage. If it from some other galactic civilization, I would argue that to be notable as well. Edison 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. --Storkk 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a yahoo group alone may not be trustworthy, but this post was apparently written by a person from the University of Arizona(so says the signature) not just "anybody". Plus, the article has pretty much information about the object, so I think we should keep it. By the way: sorry for my harsh words on the article discussion page, Rory96. --DocBrown 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per what was mentioned above. --Supermath 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Note this is this user's second edit. Gwernol 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, This is just number. But there is scientific information in this article which means notable. This is the poem that was written by person who graduated from University of Arizona. I think keeping this artlce would be best option. Daniel's page ☎ 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, There is credible evidence. Peter Ellis 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for reasons above, it will soon become clear anyway if it is not reliable info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbound (talk • contribs) .

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Dermatology, Robert Bibb, Botanical Solutions

Interlocking articles, from an editor with no other history. Ads for a dermatologist, his websites and his products. There are 22,700 Google hits for "Environmental Dermatology"; 28 of them mention Robert Bibb, primarily his own sites and PR releases, so his claims to being a "pioneer" in the field look pretty dubious. There may be potential for a real article on Environmental Dermatology; this isn't it. Pure Vanispamcruftisement. -- Fan-1967 01:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:NOT for press releases and ads. --Daniel Olsen 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:VSCA. --Storkk 02:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination, would be great if it could be speedied dr.alf 07:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Rohirok 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Victor Sierra Charlie Alpha. Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. My Alt Account 09:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional WP:VSCA, etc. --S0uj1r0 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wenqing Bao

Listed on Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English for over a month. Articles older than 2 weeks should be deleted. Also, there is no zh:鲍文清 entry, which it would be reasonable to expect there should be. Suspect vanity, or "love this girl" type page (I think it's a bio on a woman -- could be drastically wrong though). Storkk 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it has been listed since: 16:41, 7 August 2006 --Storkk 02:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, its time on en:wiki is up. Punkmorten 13:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rohirok 17:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or transwiki delete unless the content is sutiable for transwiki, which without speaking the language is impossible to tell Benon 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete article on retired writer who does not appear all that notable without a lot of verification (particularly on reliability of sources). Article is a copyvio of this page Ohconfucius 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is on the English WP? --S0uj1r0 07:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This one still isn't done, delete. · XP · 02:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pallasca District

Listed longer than 2 week maximum on Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English. Clearing backlog. Storkk 01:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It has been listed for translation since 18^th August. --Storkk 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rohirok 17:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Resolute 22:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP The page has now been roughly translated. Ohconfucius 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's been basically translated, keep. · XP · 02:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Agendas

Non-notable webzine/blog/website that fails WP:WEB. It is relatively new, I could not find external press coverage, and it has no Alexa data. Crystallina 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hard to get meaningful Ghits given words and it does not come up in a google (UK) search in the first few pages Nigel ^(Talk) 09:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no assetrtion of notability, nor is it notable Benon 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just not notable yet: delete. · XP · 02:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability yet. No extensive third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bike pod

This is a non-notable product. It isn't in wide use as admitted by the article itself. There are a ton of Google hits, but this is because there are multiple products described as bike pods. I think most of them are bicycle electronics and bike storage from what I saw at Google. What I didn't see in my search at Google were any sources that would help this product meet WP:CORP. Erechtheus 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only 2 have been made, no claim of notability for the design or designer. Rohirok 17:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sure that this isn't a hoax: designer's web site doesn't seem to exist, and a search for its name along with '"bike pod" -wikipedia' turns up nothing on google. JulesH 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not common, not notable, not keepable. Delete... · XP · 02:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JulesH. Pascal.Tesson 03:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Everything here (which is not WP:OR is already in Y2K. --- Deville (Talk) 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/9/99

• Delete: Unreferenced and sounds like WP:NOR violation. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like a hoax. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a hoax. I remember plenty of mainstream media predictions that this would be a real problem, and a foreshadow of y2k chaos. Read this and the links therein, I think it sums it up pretty well. My Alt Account 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link is just a forum posting and none of the links from it are still functional. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a forum, it's an old website by Dave Farber that tracks mailing list posts by "interesting people". With a little effort, I got this one to actually work... My Alt Account 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per wknight's first comment --Supermath 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It's not a hoax, but it doesn't warrant an article -- perhaps a few sentences in the Y2K article. Opelio 03:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already mentioned at Year 2000 problem#The programming problem; look at the second to last paragraph of that section. BryanG^(talk) 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge with redirection The article need to be rewritten imo, but is notable enough. -- lucasbfr ^talk 05:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I haven't even heard of this, but even if it's real it can just be mentioned in a Y2K article. JIP | Talk 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Year 2000 problem. --Gray Porpoise 13:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite - This was a genuinely notable issue (totally separate from Y2K, by the way) but I don't know anything about the "9999" being used as a "stop command"--that sounds pretty platform-specific. However, I do remember some concern because a lot of programs used "9/9/99" as a sort of default "future" date. As it stands the article is pretty vague (stating that "all computers would fail") and informal ("Our power didn't go out"? Talk about original research). Side note: The reason why "nothing happened" when the date came is because, (just as with Y2K), a lot programmers spent a lot of time fixing everything so that it wouldn't happen. Just wanted to throw that out there. Wavy G 15:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probable hoax, completely unverifiable. Resolute 22:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Guess I should have read above. Delete as it is already covered in the Year 2000 problem article. Does not warrant its own article. Resolute 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Is this not a hoax? If not, there are certainly no sources. And until there are, delete! Batmanand | Talk 22:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unreferenced and suitably covered elsewhere. Irongargoyle 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless expanded. There isn't much that could be said that wouldn't duplicate Year 2000 problem, unless there are WP:V sources about specific issues that differed. As it was the date was sort of a trial run in many shops and it did influence the confidence level regarding Y2K. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no Merge per BrianG. Danny Lilithborne 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The millennium bug is notable as a cultural phenomenon. 9/9/99 is by no means a convention for data input. On systems I have used 00/00/00 or 11/11/11 have worked as a means to trick a computer. In fact most computers would require 09/09/99 to be entered, particularly older ones. Mallanox 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, complete hoax. Andrew Levine 05:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as hoax. --MaNeMeBasat 13:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - it's not a hoax (as I said on the talk page, I remember some discussion at the time), but I don't think it needs its own page. Mark Grant 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - It's definately not a hoax. The MITRE corporation page on possible problem dates has a couple of mentions about the problem. The relevent information is on the Y2K page here though. I don't think the fear was significant and widespread enough to merit its own page. - The Bethling^(Talk) 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sentence in the y2k article is more than enough.Tony P 19:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not a hoax, I remember seeing it on TV on various news programs, in 1999 and 1998. But it wasn's supposed to be a major problem, (because it's in decimal...) 132.205.44.134 02:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Year 2000 problem, this was not a hoax. RFerreira 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why redirect if they are two different and completely separate (albeit similar) issues? Just want to hear your take on this. Wavy G 05:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a real and notable event, keep it. · XP · 02:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Year 2000 problem. I remember this one (this was the first event that made me realize Y2K was much ado about nothing). See this article: [2] for more info. Stev0 06:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Sega Dreamcast which, if I recall correctly, was released on 9/9/99 and used the number chain as a MAJOR advertising slogan ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A redirect to Sega Dreamcast might not be a bad idea if this gets deleted, but there isn't anything in this article that I see relevant to the Dreamcast. BryanG^(talk) 20:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Foss:82nd Airborne

Looks like vanity and couldn't find a related link on google. I guess there are too many Phillip Foss's in the world. zephyr2k 02:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:V -Nv8200p talk 14:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One of millions of soldiers who fought in the war. Probably a worthy individual, but completely non-notable. -- Necrothesp 01:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above... · XP · 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Crow

Importance Notability this rumor has not stood the test of time to become a real legend Goldenrowley 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Only one of the two sources cited appears reliable (the second is a blog), and it appears to be a one-off piece of news rather than a tradition. Choess 07:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seemingly random and non-notable urban legend. TheDrinkNinja 15:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. · XP · 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choess said it pretty well. Some editor must be confusing "random one-day joke" with "recurrent meme". Pascal.Tesson 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please defer merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Run Mall

Unnoteworthy American shopping centre. Violation of WP:Corp Moland Spring 02:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's reason. I thought this article had hope until the "infamous" incident turned out to be a baseball player swearing and not a mall shooting spree. The predicate of a sentence is often the clincher. ;) Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lima, Pennsylvania, the local municipality. Choess 07:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Lima. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Keep local notable mall. HappyUser 23:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HappyUser, failing that merge. Kappa 10:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Between the Incaviglia incident and the mall's overall notoriety in the Delaware County region, it is more than noteworthy. --ECWAGuru 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge Up to closing admin, but seems to be at least stub worthy. · XP · 02:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote here just a comment. WP:CORP doesn't apply. If we apply corp to a mall then you might as well apply Corp to Stadiums (Football, Baseball, Hockey), Museums, and Performance Theaters..they are businesses as well. WP:LOCAL applies to malls as they are not only shopping centers but also Social centers. Also, before voting on a mall, we should look at the context and location. In a city with 10-50 malls, this may not be notable, but in a city where this is the only mall, or one of two/three, it may be notable...especially if the next city with a mall is +2 hours away. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WhatIfSports.com

I saw the AFD banner for this page but noticed that it had no discussion page. The article would appear to fall under the notability and self-promotion criteria. I just removed a couple sentences where someone was begging people to join his league. I did not place the original banner (an anon editor added it a day or two ago), but I agree that it should be deleted. So I'm filling out the paperwork. Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight Keep What it mainly suffers from is too much WP:POV. --Supermath 03:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for WP:WEB and non-verifiability. –Outʀiggʀ 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alexa ranking of 18,271. --Xyzzyplugh 14:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's well-known in the sports world (Bill Simmons has mentioned it a few times in his columns, for one), and it's won a Webby for sports. Obviously, the article needs to be cleaned up. SliceNYC 15:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep needs a good cleanup and sources citing but asserts and is notable Benon 22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just about scrapes through WP:WEB on the basis of the Webby. Needs a total rewrite, though. Batmanand | Talk 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well known within baseball and fantasy circles. Article requires a major clean-up, however. Resolute 22:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This was almost certainly a bad faith nomination, made by an anon user and then followed up by a slew of vandalism by over a dozen other trolls. This article is being semi-protected for the remainder of this AFD debate. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP: It's good and should have some of the actual users capable of giving their input. Not fair for those interested to only see one completely biased side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.222.188 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 September 2006
• KEEP: WIS is already one of the best sim sports sites. It has partnerships with Fox Sports and has had a few projects with MLB and ESPN (I think). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.104.180 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 September 2006
• Withdraw (if I may), as it appears that the version I saw was the post-vandalism version and may have been a bad-faith nom. It definitely needs some cleanup, but if what you all say is true (and I of course will assume good faith with regards to that), then there is no need to delete. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 09:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kigg-r

Non-notable neologism, original research, and a mere definition. Delete! Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - mmorpg clan cruft. One-liner that probably wouldn't even be worth mentioning on the page of the game it's about. My Alt Account 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Page was created by a banned user: User:Truthseekers. I would have definitely speedied this page, btw. My Alt Account 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete It's a defention about something probably not worth mentioning anyway. --Supermath 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Per nom.Bagginator 05:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have speedied the page as vanity, if that doesn't hold up I nominate to delete dr.alf 07:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cayo Hueso

POV fork from Key West, Florida Donald Albury 03:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It only deserves a sentence or two in the Key West article. --Supermath 03:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Key West, Florida --RMHED 12:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Unlike New Amsterdam, for example, this previous name of a city isn't really significant enough for its own article. However, the creator, Averette, has eliminated the WP:POV from the article, so the nom's reason no longer fits. I fail to see how deletion is necessary. Picaroon9288•talk 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect And add details to the new parent. · XP · 02:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Sunday Morning

No information provided

Some Sunday Morning is a solid candidate for deletion. There is no information here, no references and no links. Jagvar 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —ExplorerCDT 23:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete CSD A1/A3. Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, something that would only be of interest for people that go to the university. Merging to the university article isn't really that great of an option since the whole thing is cut and pasted from an alumni newsletter. - Bobet 15:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Aggie Tradition at Utah State University

Topic is not remotely encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not the place for inside jokes or things not notable outside a tiny community, nor is it a place for university propaganda. Article itself is entirely OR and POV as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not an inside joke, a tradition. Google search it to find enough coverage. --Daniel Olsen 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep since it seems to be a notable tradition, rather than a newfangled one ("It is a tradition that students keep off the grass. This tradition will begin tomorrow."). A rewrite won't hurt, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 03:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant material and image into Utah State University. Daniel Case 03:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only if sourced. Arbusto 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only if sourced. otherwise delete Bwithh 11:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and add an NPOV, sourced paragraph to Utah State University. This article is nothing but propaganda and a how-to. Better off starting fresh. Resolute 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to Utah State University. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Boosterism. Reads like a brochure...completely unencyclopaedic. —ExplorerCDT 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep\Merge - I go to USU, I can fix it, or merge it, or whatever. SuperCow 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Not a single source, not even a campus paper.User:Guyanakoolaid66.201.16.101 09:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to find a reference, however, there is a question about it that I have put on the talk page of the article. --SuperCow 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 State Street

• Delete: Non-notable building (at least not that I can tell from the article). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Do a google search on just "17 State Street", you'll get over 50,000 hits. I think that speaks for itself. --Daniel Olsen 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yeah, it's an address. I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it wasn't notable. What differentiates it from large buildings worldwide? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I think somewhere in those 50,000 ghits there are articles about the building's construction, notable tenants, etc. I think when you build a 40 story building it generally attracts a bit of media attention. Do we have a notability guideline for buildings yet? --Daniel Olsen 04:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 40/+ storey buildings are not uncommon in New York City. This list shows 245 buildings (incl. a few planned/under construction/demolished ones) with 40 or more storeys. 17 State St. comes in at 128th highest Bwithh 11:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Aaron 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although if the article is sufficiently expanded (showing that its construction was notable and commented upon, that it represents a milestone in architectural achievement, that it has a long and storied history), then I might change my mind. Cool building, but Manhattan is choking to death on cool buildings; to be notable, a building needs to be exceptional. Captainktainer * Talk 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I get over 1,000,000 hits in google. Leidiot 10:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you enclose it in quotes? At which point you get less than 74,000. From there, how many of them actually refer to the building in question, and not some random "17 State Street" in Missoula? The Google Test does not establish notability! Nobody has been able to offer up any proof of notability or any reliable sources; just "I saw it on Google." You can't write an article with "I saw it on Google." You write an article using reliable sources, from a neutral point of view. So far nobody has been able to come up with any information that allows us to write a complete article that satisfies the NPOV policy; nobody has been able to come up with any reliable sources. Captainktainer * Talk 11:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Non-notable Manhattan skyscraper (245 buildings existing/planned/used to exist with 40+ storeys in NYC - see link in my comment above) Bwithh 11:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have plenty of articles on shorter skyscrapers (e.g., Chase Center (Phoenix)). The building also appears to host some sort of archaeology museum. Here are some links for consideration: [3], [4], [5], [6] [7]. (Some links are better than others, but hopefully, they'll give you a better picture of the skyscraper.) Zagalejo 19:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the archaeology exhibition/museum which is described by its creators in the NYTimes article as:"New York Unearthed will be a modest enterprise, its creators say, not a reason itself to make a trip to lower Manhattan but a worthwhile addition to a Battery-South Street itinerary." If the official blurb is that visiting the museum is not worth me taking a subway trip from Upper Manhattan to Lower Manhattan, it's probably not a notable exhibition. As for the Chase Center - why, that's the tallest building in all of Arizona, woohoo. But this is Manhattan we're talking about here. Bwithh 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do think the circumstances that led to the museum's inclusion are interesting. And it currently has about 2 million items in its collection, which isn't too shabby. In any case, it's something distinct about the building that can be used to expand the article. And why should the building be penalized because Manhattan is so densley packed with skyscrapers? Would you really consider this building more notable if it had been in a smaller city? Zagalejo 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just a nn smallish skyscraper. Marcus22 19:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. There are many skyscrapers on Wikipedia, but in its current state, this particular one fails WP:N. If it can be proved to be notable, I would change my state. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable. Google test isn't valid, because I'd bet half of the towns in America have a "State Street." I didn't even know Manhattan has one (and I live there), my first thought in looking at the article's name (before looking at the article) was that it was something in Trenton, NJ. —ExplorerCDT 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are 12,900 google hits for "17 state street" + manhattan. Zagalejo 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge, New York landmark. The BBC feature it in their "aeriel shots of Manhattan". [8] Kappa 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I brought this to AFD mainly because there was so little info in the article. Could the folks that are voting keep here possibly put those findings in the article itself so it won't look so anemic? This AFD now has more assertion of notability than the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I included some info about the archaeology museum. The article is still short, but an article shouldn't be deleted just because it is a stub. Zagalejo 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not being deleted because it's a stub, but because the building, while pretty, isn't really notable. —ExplorerCDT 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I was mainly addressing Wknight's comment, "I brought this to AFD mainly because there was so little info in the article." But with regards to your argument -- are there any established notability criteria for skyscrapers? I would think that all buildings that exceed a certain height threshhold are inherently notable. The World Almanac traditionally lists every building in the US over 500 ft tall, and I don't see the harm of giving each of those structures a Wikipedia article.

• And, actually, I think the aesthetic qualities you mentioned do lend it some notability. It's an easily recognizable part of the skyline, and it has inspired a fair amount of discussion on message boards, blogs, and photo-sharing sites: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. (These aren't the kinds of things that should be cited in the article, but they do suggest that many people are interested in the building.) Zagalejo 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Anyone who lives in New York knows this building by looks alone. Just to add its home to the museum as mentioned above and its google hits speak plenty considering the building is known by its address alone. --User:Zer0faults 23:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A greatly expanded article since the August version, the building has an unusual plan form for new york and clearly stands out from it's neighbors by it's use of colour and general grace. It's critical notability seems to be established here.

In the 1970s, some very interesting mid-size office buildings were erected by the William Kaufman Organization on the east side of Lower Manhattan - 77 Water Street and 127 John Street, and a bit later, the beautiful curved, reflective glass tower at 17 State Street, but these paled in comparison with the scale of the silvery twin towers of the World Trade Center, the strong vertical piers of One Chase Manhattan Plaza, and the ungainliness of the huge tower at 60 Wall Street for the Morgan bank.

• Strong Keep per User:Zer0faults. Travb (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The building is clearly distinctive especially when the skyline is seen from the harbor. I also read that there was an issue about the deal behind its construction. This involved the NY State Supreme Court. It also did not get a permanent occupancy certificate for years until after it was built. If we decide to keep it, I volunteer to format it, edit it, and make "a respectable article out of her".Gary Joseph 07:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Egad, of course this is notable, and extremely so. RFerreira 05:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Reminder to new folks coming in: this was the article when I first came across it. I think it's notable myself now but people keep improving it as long as this open so I'm leaving it!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable New York building, many other comparable buildings have articles -- just because NYC has a lot of major building shouldn't be a reason to limit the articles. Tfine80 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippy hollow

The article is a one-liner with no links or refrences. Supermath 03:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hippie Hollow Park. zephyr2k 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hippie Hollow Park Leidiot 10:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

600 W 113th

• Delete: Non-notable building. A dorm building I guess? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An apartment building turned dorm? Non-notable, it doesn't even have a name! --Daniel Olsen 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per both of the above comments. --Supermath 03:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. Daniel Case 03:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Columbia has notable dorms. This is not one of them... and as it turns out, this is on the list of articles you really shouldn't make. Captainktainer * Talk 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable building. JIP | Talk 09:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the only notable thing is that it is a pre war building. Other than that, nothing else. Leidiot 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not notable, because New York has oodles of prewar buildings. Daniel Case 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The nomination summed up exactly what was needed to justify this article's retention; it has not been supplied here. Before I am accused of ignoring the majority among the bolded words, AfD is not a vote. Three out of four keep arguments don't even try to argue the case; the other was adequately addressed by Trevyn. The most important bolded words here are not the ones saying 'keep' or 'delete', but the quote in the nomination. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioconservatism

Delete. Neologism. References are mostly a couple of blogs, which don't even provide appropriate support for much beyond the definition, hence much of article is WP:OR. Appears to be an excuse to make a list of people (most non-notable themselves) who happen to agree with a viewpoint. Fewer than 10k GHits.

If you disagree, please read Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Reliable sources for neologisms in full before entering a recommendation.

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

Trevyn 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However, I have no problem with the list of people being deleted. --Loremaster 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Loremaster is the primary maintainer of this page, and has not disclosed himself as such. -- Trevyn 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Calm down, Trevyn. I simply forgot. I was about to identify myself as the primary contributor when you caused an edit conflict. --Loremaster 03:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. Here's a paper about the term: [15]. Other than that, all I really have to say is that as long as the Transhumanism article exists without question, it's hard to argue against the article for its antonym, and WP:IAR if you're otherwise going to get that hung up on WP:NEO. But I'd like to see some evidence that all those individuals listed have actually outed themselves as "bioconservatives". --Aaron 04:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) That "paper" is a blog post on a distinctly non-neutral site, and claiming it is "about" the word is tenuous. 2) The existence of one article is not justification for what may be (or may not be) its antonym. 3) Regarding WP:IAR, I believe that WP:NEO is a considered guideline whose intent is to increase clarity and prevent Wikipedia from being used as a launching pad for politically-loaded words which are not in the common vocabulary. ("bioconservatism" appears to have been coined in 2004.) -- Trevyn 04:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bioconservatism is not a coherent position or philosophy. Almost no one has identified him- or herself as a bioconservative. Rather than serving to characterize people who agree with a given viewpoint, the article provides a catch-all term for people whose only similarity is skepticism about implementing one or another technology. Its use has invariably been by a very few writers who contrast their favored position with "bioconservatism."--StN 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could debate for hours about whether or not bioconservatism is a coherent position or a vague catch-all term (a debate which could be summarized and added to the article if it survives!). However, the fact that almost no one identifies himself as a bioconservative or that the term has invariably been used by writers who contrast their favored position with bioconservatism is NOT reason enough to delete this article. Otherwise, according to this logic, since almost no one describes himself as a reactionary, we should delete the Reactionary article. --Loremaster 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the Reactionary article. But there the fact that no one describes himself as a reactionary is reflected in the statement up front that it is "a political epithet, generally used as a pejorative."--StN 20:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I have no problem with the Bioconservatism article having a similar statement as long as it acknowledges that the political epithet "bioconservative" is meant to be used as a non-pejorative alternative to "bioluddite". --Loremaster 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That "bioconservatism" is not a coherent position is, of course, not a major reason for it being inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The primary reason is that it is not in widespread use—possibly because of a lack of coherency. If, in a couple years, the term catches on, it may then be able to justify its own article. I am most concerned about the misuse of Wikipedia as the primary authoritative source for a definition of "bioconservatism". The top two Google hits, and four of the top seven, are Wikipedia and its clones. Wikipedia is intended to reflect human knowledge, not create it. -- Trevyn 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This could totally be a section of the transhumanism page, with some citations. Especially since, once you remove the list of people who may or may not follow this reasoning, most of what's left is links to that page. That pages is starting to get long, though.--GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bioconservatism is a genuine ideology! -- Voldemort 06:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is Trevynism. That doesn't make it appropriate for Wikipedia. —Trevyn 06:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, nonsense NawlinWiki 04:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Pavlakis

Basically, this page has been completely made up. Supermath 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A7. Daniel Case 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. In clear-cut cases like this, you usually save everybody time by just speedying it in the first place. My Alt Account 03:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - CSD A7. MER-C 04:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Option to merge still available as an editorial decision. Petros471 12:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. N. Other

• Delete: I may be off on this one but I can't find any verification for this and it's been marked as unreferenced for months (hence why I stumbled across it). If someone can find good refs, I'll withdraw. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know whether you'd consider my Cricinfo reference "good", but it's from a very well-known, long established website. Loganberry (Talk) 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only references I could find were on Wikipedia's mirrors. --Supermath 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an easy term to search for. However, if you use this search, you get a number of hits for the phrase being used like this on the first page alone. Loganberry (Talk) 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have heard it used, and I have found non-Wikipedia references to it on the web. e.g. Microsoft Encarta [16], Cambridge Dictionary [17]. I can see a lot of use of the expression using Alta Vista with the search string "a.n.other" -wikipedia to exclude the pages which mention Wikipedia — Google doesn't seem much good for this as it removes the punctuation. Jll 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are both dictionaries. I guess move to Wiktionary is an option but the entire rest of the article is unsourced. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I am not sure either that there is enough to say about it for an encyclopedia article; but I didn't suggest that because there are articles on other common placeholder names such as Bloggs, John Doe, Jane Roe and Richard Roe and Tom, Dick and Harry. If it gets kept then the original research should go. Jll 11:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if sources can be found (which I'm sure they can with a little effort). This name was routinely used on pictures of credit cards and chequebooks in adverts for banking services in the UK in the 1980s and early 1990s. JulesH 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment MSN Search is better for finding this than google, because it doesn't try to be as smart and consider "an other" as a match.[18] JulesH 18:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete dict def, if not neologism hoax, perhaps a move to wictionary (if verified). --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 04:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure you that "AN Other" (usually written, in the common British English way, with no punctuation or spaces between the initials) is a very common "placeholder" for sporting squads - eg "Squad additions (3): JN Smith, WT Taylor and AN Other". That sort of thing. I don't know how old the usage is, but it's certainly no neologism: I've seen it in newspapers since the 1980s at least, and it might be decades older than that. That takes care of "neologism"; whether or not "dictdef" still applies I'll leave to you. Loganberry (Talk) 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still do not believe this article will ever be more than a dict def for a slang term. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 16:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs a lot of cleaning up, but the phrase is not at all uncommon in the UK - perhaps it's just not used (much, if at all) in the US? You quite often see the term used in cricket (because traditionally players are listed on the scorecard as initials and surname, eg I. T. Botham). Here is a recent example from Cricinfo, a very popular cricket website; I've added that reference to the article itself. Loganberry (Talk) 15:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jll. —dustmite 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Loganberry. I have used the term myself both in the context of sporting competitions and staff planning schedules. From a UK perspective it seems as valid as say John Doe and there is an extensive Placeholder names page (I didn't know there were that many!). Nigel ^(Talk) 12:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Placeholder name--Peta 04:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Len Davies (media)

No assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO, largely unverifiable Sasaki 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite and Keep.I may be mistaken but I believe he is the person behind the music of the new Dr. Who Series. Whatever the case it needs to be verified..EnsRedShirt 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)(edited twice to add signature.. sorry)
• Keep and verify. i agree the article needs verification but he is the owner of both a multimedia company and a wrestling promotion which is notable... and from the sounds of it he muust be a well established video editor --- Paulley

• Comment I'd definitely be in favour of a re-write if the article is kept. However simply being a well established video editor isn't necessarily grounds for inclusion, WP:BIO states Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. Also being a company owner doesn't make you notable per se, is there anything about Len Davies himself that makes him notable? Sasaki 11:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. I'm fond of entrepreneurs, but owning a couple of small companies does not push him over the line for me. William Pietri 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertions of notability that would meet the requirements of WP:BIO, and even the information that is there is not properly sourced per WP:V. --Satori Son 18:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TurboTools Corporation

^{[Check Google hits]}. Most of 339 Ghits are reprints of company's own press releases, thus not meeting the only possible WP:CORP standard. Daniel Case 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete^TM per nom. My Alt Account 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ditto. —dto 04:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, company listed in article List of EDA companies Alconi 04:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What makes it notable, then? Daniel Case 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Turbo Delete nn corp. Marcus22 19:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete —Xezbeth 10:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tjaco Walvis

Communications agency executive who has written a number of articles/papers. At time of nomination the claims are all unsourced. Barely any Ghits here - none of which are substantial. Fails WP:V as well as WP:BIO. I also nominate redirect page:

• Tjaco-walvis BlueValour 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable branding executive/wonk. possible vanity. Bwithh 18:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertions of notability that would satisfy WP:BIO, and what information is in the article is not sourced to credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. The "References" section appears to be simply a list of minor industry reports and trade pub articles authored by the subject. --Satori Son 05:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Petros471 12:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 o'clock wave

• Delete: Appears unverifiable. Google search gives only one or two non-Wikipedia references. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The 5 o'clock wave is mentioned in Morris, Wagga Wagga: a history. I've added the reference which also appears in the Wagga Wagga, New South Wales article. - Gimboid13 05:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another thought. I've only heard the term used in association with Wagga Wagga, but the article says it's common to "rural riverine areas located downstream from major dams, particularly those with rivers that have the Snowy Mountains as their source". I don't know how many more localities fit those two criteria but it seems to me that just merging it into the Wagga Wagga article might not do it justice. - Gimboid13 07:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Maybe mention this in the Wagga Wagga, New South Wales article and leave it at that. --GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to be a Wagga phenomena. Worth mentioning in our article on the town but it might not be worth a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to me to be mostly nonsense (although it may only be the way I read it), and little verifiability. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♫-) 00:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Wagga Wagga, New South Wales User:Guyanakoolaid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.201.16.101 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep DXRAW 07:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I grew up in Wagga living there for 18 years. The 5 o'clock wave is very well known local folklore. For many years there was a surf shop (i.e. it sold board shorts and tank tops, not surfboards!) in the main street call The 5 O'Clock Wave in reference to this local folklore. The text of this entry is entirely accurate in its description. Possibily this myth has been forgotten in more recent years, I havn't lived in Wagga for 8 years or so, in which case documenting a disappearing oral tradition becomes more important! This article most definately should stay.--129.78.208.4 04:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Wagga Wagga, New South Wales. Due to the low number of google hits, I'm left to believe that this is heavily localized slang. We don't really need an article for every such term, but it certainly fits into an article on the municipality where it is used. Cool3 12:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Should be left how it is however it does need more information in the article. -- Bidgee 22:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOLD TEAM

When I read that members "follow a strick creed to ensure proper ethics", I think I don't need to check any of the more than half million that come up^{[Check Google hits]} to find any relevant link to know it won't make WP:CORP. Daniel Case 03:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom, although nominator failed to mention that the first google hits at least have absolutely no relevance to this article. Was prodded by me, de-prodded by author. Mak (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article doesn't explain why this group is more notable than a zillion other consulting businesses. NawlinWiki 06:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 09:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if not verified and cleaned up. If it is, then Keep Tango Alpha Foxtrot 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 05:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Duelists

Not the Ridley Scott film, but some guys who play Renaissance fairs on the West Coast. Page looks like advertising was their goal; even so, I'm not sure what they do is sufficiently notable. Daniel Case 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ... oh good God just make it go away. --Aaron 04:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just delete it eah... no reason there Aaron... Just because YOU dont like it... all the more reason to get rid of it. -- ph0t0bug
• Delete. The article is just a homepage and/or advertising Leidiot 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A cynical vanity page/advertisement for NN performers. The contributors have edited only this article [19][20] and the article is copyvio from here. --IslaySolomon 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Because at the time of writing the artical that is all the information I could find. I did in fact ask the owner of the page if I could use the Bios that were on their home page and they said "Yes." I have since obtained more information via a phone interview and will be posting that information as well. -- Ph0t0bug
  • You can't use information from a phone interview in a Wikipedia article if it can't be found in a reliable source as well.

    As for the images being copyrighted, well, getting permission to use them is nice but since May 2005 we have been trying to avoid using "copyrighted, permission for use" images because the permission can only extend to Wikipedia, not later users such as our scrape sites (answers.com, reference.com and the like), and we want all pictures on Wikipedia to be as freely reproducible as the text of articles. My suggestion would be to take your own pictures if possible, and then upload and license them as {{GFDL-self}}
    And the copyright violation claim refers to the text of the articles, not just the images. Daniel Case 14:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Copyright violation and non-notable. -- Stbalbach 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At this point I want someone to send me a link to what is defined as Notable on Wiki... and I did not violate ANY Copyrites.

• Comment. There is a series of articles like this on Wikipedia, see Renaissance Fair#Notable entertainers for a list - I'm not sure what to do about it, they started showing up en-masse a few months ago, word must have gotten around to a mailing list or something. I keep deleting all the red-links people are adding to the list, but that seems to encourage them to create non-notable articles like this one. -- Stbalbach 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Where is a copyrite violation? I consider this group notable in the fact that they are one of only a few which goes around to festivals teaching about the history of swordfighting and with credits to them for being professionals at what they do not only at festivals around the country and the globe but also for the contrabutions to films and plays around the country. That is what makes them "Notable". I can tell you right now that the Brobdingnagian Bards or Blackmore's Night or Minstrels of Mayhem or anyone on the list that is located on the artical for Renaissance Fair have made no more notable contrabutions to Renaissance Fairs than The Duelists. Just because they do not sing you choose to delete them. Half of the people on the Renaissance Fair#Notable entertainers list I have never heard of... That makes them Non-Notable to me. I am the one who authored this artical... because I thought they were intresting enough because of the fact that they DO exactly what the first Ren Fest was created to do and that is EDUCATE! As for the Copyright... I obtained all the photographs and information from Randal Scott who I have FULL permission from to do so... so there is no violation of the copyright when the owner of the copyrite gave me the stuff to use. Do as you will but I if they are to be deleted then so must the entire list of "Notable" preformers on the "Renaissance Fair" page. If that is gonna happen then deletion of all of the fairs listed there should be deleted as they are all advertising their fairs. ph0t0bug 13:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and whilst at it, delete many of the other equally non notable 'Notable Entertainers' Marcus22 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Resolute 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ok.. Since everyone seems to want to kill this page lets first look at the word that was used the most: Notable

Defined by the American Heritage Dict.:
no·ta·ble (nt-bl) Pronunciation Key adj. Worthy of note or notice; remarkable: notable beauty; sled dogs that are notable for their stamina. Characterized by excellence or distinction; eminent: formed a commission of notable citizens. See Synonyms at noted. n. A person of distinction or great reputation. See Synonyms at celebrity. often Notable One of a council of prominent persons in pre-Revolutionary France called into assembly to deliberate at times of emergency.
End of Definition

The people to whom this page refers to fulfill all the requirements for the first definition by right of what they do. They educate the public and are known by millions of people who have seen their "shows" and lectures. So to say that they are Non-Notable is just being un-educated in the use of the word. Because someone does not know who someone is does not mean that that person is not notable to others. Thus we must look at what Wiki defines notable as.... which at this point I cant seem to find an artical on... so.. I digress. They also have shown "Excellence" & "Distinction" in their field so this proves them VERY Notable indeed. If there are changes that need to be made please suggest them and I will be more than happy to comply with those changes but don't just assume that because someone posted an artical about a person or group means that "THAT" person or group posted it just to "advertise". The Artical was never ment as an advertisement. --Ph0t0bug

• Delete. I can see no real notability here. And re the above comment, I very much doubt that they have been seen by anywhere near a million people, let alone millions. -- Necrothesp 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep IF any source that says anything about their relative notability as you state it can be found outside their own webpage. Otherwise Delete Guyanakoolaid 09:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ph0t0bug, notability guidelines are found here. --IslaySolomon 12:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment IslaySolomon, While that is a page on Wiki that starts to define what the guidelines are you did NOT read the whole artical. CLEARLY stated at the top of the artical next to the "?" it states the following:

This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Once adopted as policy that would be Wiki's guidline but until then it is just perposed and can not be considered as law.
I must say that I DO apreciate Guyanakoolaid is saying and I will do the research. I wish more people responding to this would be as objective. --Ph0t0bug

There are very few hard policies on Wikipedia, %90 (or more) of the "rules" are actually just "guidelines". The reason is, it's very difficult to make a hard policy that works in every case - so we have pages like this where consensus is built around the guidelines - in the end its all about consensus, because even the guidelines can (and do) change all the time with consensus. My recommendation would be to learn more about how to write Wikipedia articles so they satisfy peoples sense of notability - look at other similar articles and re-write yours to be similar. Tone down the pictures so it doesn't look like a promotional site (one or two small pictures). Tone down the amount of text so it doesn't read like a home web page. Make it encyclopedic - information that will last 100 years, as if written by an academic scholar and historian. Also don't make it look like it was written by The Duelists, that is also grounds for deletion (self promotion is considered spam on Wikipedia). -- Stbalbach 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also direct your attention to WP:BIO, which is beyond the proposal stage and is "law". Can you find (and back up with sources) any way the Duelists satisfy those criteria? Daniel Case 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I think this particular article should be deleted, I must point out that WP:BIO is a guideline only and not a policy (or "law"), as it clearly states in the first paragraph. -- Necrothesp 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I meant in the fact that it's not a proposal, as the general notability guideline is. Daniel Case 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Understood... but there in lies the problem. Concensis. I can find thousands of people on WP who have never heard of these men and maybe even a few who are aginst the group as a whole... but... I could, and will state right now that I havent and will not, find a thousand to get on here and post "Keep". I have seen pages done by some of the people who are in this list that I have NO idea who they are... but I am not going to go to those pages and set them up for deletion. All in all it seems like a bad way of deciding what stays and what goes. It seems that some would just look at the new pages that are being added and not going out and activly finding the ones that already exist that look like advertising. I know a few of the groups that are listed on the Ren Fair artical and while I personally think that all of them should stay I also think that if this page is to go I will begin to do the same to bring any other "Advertising" page to the same demise. I have been to several of the other pages for "Notable" groups and NONE of them are up for deletion. I ask then WHY is my artical up for it. Lets be fair about it. Lets put them ALL up for deletion... of course refering to the "Notable" group on the Renaissance Fair. In fact I think that any person who would gain profits by even having a page on Wiki should be deleted. But if we did this ALL movies would have to go, Director & Actor Bios would have to go, Any living Artist would have to go. All Bands will have to go as well... See, anyone looking up something on Wikipedia may come across a link to something that points to those persons website.... which could be considered advertising and furthermore on that website could have a store, shop, t-shirts... and this is all from clicking on an external link on an Artical on Wiki. I say lets not do something half way... if your going to do it... go all the way.... but wait... that defets the reason to have a world supported encyclopedia --Ph0t0bug
• Weak keep if and only if the article actually gets some meat added to it - right now it looks like an ad. Info on just what WMA traditions they use, what their shows have to offer besides the generic descriptions, significant performances etc. would do much to improve it. Ergative rlt 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you... That is all I ask for is a chance to improve it. I will do so before the 5 days runs out. --Ph0t0bug

• • And if you could, what might really help your case would be some media coverage, with specific citations (online would make it easy to verify, but find what you can) of the non-trivial variety (i.e., not just a passing mention), a general principle in many of our issue-specific notability guidelines. Show us that people are urged to go to Renaissance fairs to see these guys. Show us something about their movie and TV work. Show us news stories that are primarily about them, and put them in the article as references. We like that. Daniel Case 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Group is not quite notable enough. Though some of the events they appear at might be. My Alt Account 09:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moustacheville

Appears to be a hoax. Google search for moustacheville greece returns zero non--wikipedia results. Apologies to any residents of moustacheville if I'm wrong. —Nate Scheffey 04:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:V, to put it mildly. My Alt Account 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:Hoax. The Greek transliteration is a nice touch, though. --GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, extreme WP:BALLS. WP:SNOW this nonsense. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an obvious hoax. JIP | Talk 09:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a hoax. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to call it a hoax is to be overly courteous. Danny Lilithborne 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, nonsense bio NawlinWiki 04:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Atkinson Manzini Valencia

unverifiable, article lists no references HResearcher 04:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speeedy delete - CSD A7. No assertion of notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and rename per User:Uncle G below (well done Uncle G! Spelling wasn't even close). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aalakadikkumoolai

• Delete: Perusing Category:Articles lacking sources and found this. Google search brings up zero non-Wikipedia references [21], [22], [23]. I'm happy to withdraw if someone can verify or find a correct spelling. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be nonsense; the article creator's entire edit history [24] consists of creating the article and making an edit to it less than 60 seconds later. --Aaron 04:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like nonsense to me. Leidiot 10:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The correct spelling is Aladikkumulai, it appears. Uncle G 13:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Gothic Heart

Contested prod about a non-notable website (alexa ~ 280,000: [25] ). MER-C 04:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:WEB. Author de-prodded twice, then an "anon" came by and de-prodded again, and resumed editing. What a waste of time. My Alt Account 04:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a failure of WP:WEB.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per My Alt Account. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• you BROKE my DELETE ad. Danny Lilithborne 01:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, hoax bio NawlinWiki 04:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Maunsell

Non notable / possible hoax Brian | (Talk) 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Brian | (Talk) 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. This is a hoax. The Parnell Panther, a serial rapist, did not have a victim named Nathan Maunsell. The "reference" links don't contain any of the information claimed in the article. Clearly someone's prank on this Nathan Maunsell person, whoever he is. wikipediatrix 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be unverifiable. External links don't have anything to do with this person. Zero ghits[26] — NMChico24 04:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youngtron

Corporate vanity page for non-notable corporation; no evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Valrith 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - spammy. MER-C 05:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — as an advertisement failing both WP:CORP and WP:V --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:CORP as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. E-mail us? No, I think we should delete you instead. Blatant spam. Irongargoyle 23:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Victor Sierra Charlie Alpha. Danny Lilithborne 01:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Donovan

Vanity creation of Donovan0001 (talk · contribs · count). Does not meet WP:BIO. Note that he is not the author of notable books but something closer to souvenir books. Google gets 284 unique hits for "Don donovan" + "new zealand" [27] not that bad but not a whole lot either and going through the links I could not find evidence of significant third party coverage which means that the article's content is most likely to remain unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems like it's borderline. The article needs work, for sure, but it's hard to tell how notable those publications are. Any Kiwis know anything? --GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. A Google News Archive search for "Don Donovan" comes up with one relevant hit from New Zealand Marketing Magazine see [28] Capitalistroadster 00:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:AUTO. Danny Lilithborne 01:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, published author, "One Man's heart attack" and "New Zealand Odyssey" are available in Auckland public libraries.-gadfium 01:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly an autobiography. If he is notable someone else would write him up, and it seems clear he is not. Seldumonde 17:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floast

Non-notable neologism. Valrith 04:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, protologism, no sources outside the one forum. NawlinWiki 06:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom & NawlinWiki --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 06:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-admitted neologism. JIP | Talk 09:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. For this one entry, I wish you could actually copyright a term as the author suggests, because then it would be speedyable. hehe. Irongargoyle 00:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not for stupid in-jokes. Danny Lilithborne 01:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries

An unrecognized "accreditor", 178 yahoo hits, second hit is wikipedia article, and article asserts nothing. Arbusto 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is useful for putting articles on the member schools of ARTS in context. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only one non-list mainspace article links to it; its usefulness in terms of promoting context is limited, at best. The article focuses mostly on what it is not, rather than what it is, which appears to be a function of the fact that we don't have enough reliable sources to write about it with strict verifiability. The fact that it is unaccredited can be very easily handled with a simple mention in whatever articles it is mentioned in. In the meantime, we have a perpetual stub on hand. Captainktainer * Talk 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the Captain explained. CaliEd 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one school connected with it, no notablity, and questionable. Nickieee 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are nine schools connected with it. See http://www.artseminaries.org/members.htm for a list. It is entirely possible that other editors will contribute articles about the other seminaries receiving unrecognized accreditation from the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries without realizing that the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries is unrecognized. Keeping this article would help place future articles about members of ARTS in context. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And when we have enough material that meets our policy for reliable sources for such institutions, and when we've written up stubs that meet Wikipedia policies for all of them, perhaps we can revisit this article; in general, articles are not protected against recreation when the deletion is not related to a living person or a constant troll-magnet. In the meantime, this article is a perpetual stub that focuses on what the subject is not, rather than what it is. I, for one, think it would not be wonderful to have an encyclopedia wherein most articles consist of saying "This person is not an elephant, Godzilla, Tom Cruise, Emmylou Harris, or M80", because we don't have enough material to write with strict verifiability about what it is. Captainktainer * Talk 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for now The article should probably exist, but it's so vague and empty (and full of negatives, Cap'n) that it's not actually useful. Maybe the best course would be to delete for now, and come back with a better article. Maybe a little [WP:Vanity] would be OK, since they themselves might know what they actually do and stand for. Some of those seminaries have articles (like Geneva_Reformed_Seminary, but they don't mention it. Are they just conservative Presbyterians? I'm not sure from the article or the webpage. --GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clements University and St Clements University

Non-notable diploma mill. This school is NOT accredited and cannot be verified per WP:V and WP:RS. Website claims that are "accredited" by members of unrecognized "International Council for Open and Distance Education," but this an accreditation mill and the website displays false information regarding its recognition.

1. The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization lists St. Clements University as unaccredited.[29]
2. St. Clements is called a "degree mill" by List of non-accredited colleges/ universities by State of Maine (see listing 564)
3. A "who is" check shows this Carribean school's address is a PO Box in AUSTRALIA with an IP in that country (prices in US dollars).
4. Delete per the St. Clements University's description, "As a commercial university, St Clements role in education is to assist candidates obtain the qualifications they need."[30] This ad fails notablity per WP:CORP and WP:V.
5. "St Clements University" gets 340 yahoo hits with the majority of hits being promotion in online forums. Arbusto 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete similiar article St Clements University. Arbusto 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and withdrawal nomination with the good work of TheronJ. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions moved to talk page. Arbusto 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is not an editor's responsibility to go out of their way to verify an article, notability needs to be provided by the author Guyanakoolaid 09:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What does notability have to do with this discussion? Also, we should make it our responsibility.Bagginator 09:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply What does notability have to do with this discussion? Everything! And I have better things to do with my time than check accreditation for diploma mills trying to prove legitimacy through wikipedia. From WP:V: 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.Guyanakoolaid 09:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment for now I contacted IFA and asked them to provide verifiable evidence of accreditation for St. Clements University. Hopefully I will receive a response before this AfD is finalized and we can know for a certainty one way or the other.Bagginator 10:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 1) No legitmate (Cambridge, Oxford, UL, UK, IE) accredited British institution appears on the lists. 2) Three state agencies note they are unaccredited. 3) We have NO WP:V on what this is. 4) No notablity is offer with WP:RS. 5) One US state government called this a diploma mill. Arbusto 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is one good reason for keeping these sham institutions: since Wikipedia has such a high google ranking, anyone looking for information can see the WP page and learnt that it is, indeed, an unaccredited diploma mill since it's page will appear as # 2 or 3 probably. They can then further find out what a Diploma mill is by following the links and, if truly ambitious, discover the entire shady world of such "institutions." That said, Wikipedia is not here to provide caveat emptor services and this place should be expunged. I should know: I have a Master's degree in "Life Experience." Eusebeus 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even weirder, it appears that last year they were based in Namibia. Currently I'm on the fence, but if we can produce a good article with verifiable information, I think it should be kept. If somebody cleans this up so the article is an accurate portrayal of their dubiousness, I'm all for a keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane for the kind of turnaround I'm thinking of. William Pietri 02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - 1,830 google hits. Educational institutions are notable. --Ineffable3000 03:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment: What WP:V source do you have that it is an educational institution? Arbusto 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Look here. It is an educational institution. Even though it is not accredited, it is still an educational institution. --Ineffable3000 21:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • How is that a source to prove it is an educational institution? That's a bio of a person who claims a degree. Someone from Africa in a position of power with a fake degree isn't new. For example, Riek Machar (VP of Southern Sudan) in this Dec 2005 Sudan Tribune article states Machar "Received Doctorate from University of Bedford, England in 1984." The problem is no such school exists called University of Bedford, which was a diploma mill operation that would predate the degrees it sold. Arbusto 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Diploma mills are notable too. Leave the page and state that it might be a potential diploma mill. --Ineffable3000 03:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
        • Comment: It is notable? Does it meet WP:V? Those are reasons for keep, and no sources have been convincing of that. Arbusto 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable. Doesn't meet WP:V. --Ineffable3000 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well-researched nom. Note that 1150 general Ghits for "st. clements university" boils down to 213 distinct hits, including some odd ones for "Superior Moulding". Fails WP:CORP for lacking the usual third-party non-trivial articles, no awards, no... oh never mind. Tychocat 12:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep St. Clements University and delete and redirect St Clements University. First, as a general matter, the university is notable to anyone who's considering getting a degree from them, or to anyone who sees a St. Clements degree on a resume, and we should keep the page as a resource for them. Second, under WP:CORP, it's notable because it's been discussed by John Bear in his book and by at least three US states, which should qualify as "consumer watchdog organizations" in this context. It's true that it's a scam, but that's all the more reason to preserve the information. TheronJ 14:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I should have pointed that I've added some sources to St. Clements University. I encourage people to take another look at the page. TheronJ 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added some more links to the St. Clements University page. It still needs some polishing, but I think it's a notable non-accredited university. (For example, it turns out to be Senator Kim Carr's favorite example of a degree mill during Australian Senate hearings). TheronJ 15:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with TheronJ. If we are going to do lists such as List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning that include this school, then I would think we would need articles on the components of said lists - in fact it is a quasi-requirement of wikipedia list guidelines[31]. This nom is a frequent contributor to various diploma mill lists [32] , but wants this deleted because it is a "non-notable diploma mill" and "can not be verified". If that is true, what is the point of listing it? Why are we doing lists of diploma mills (all of which are by definition more or less "non-notable" and unverifiable) in the first place? --JJay 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Actually TheronJ did major cleaning it up and kindly contacted me my talk about the changes. Don't personalize matters with vague inferences based on false assumptions. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not sure what you mean by "false assumptions" or "personalize matters" since I merely quoted from your deletion nomination. Please review the list guideline page linked above. --JJay 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TheronJ, thanks for doing the hard work. Wikipedia could use more editors like you. Bagginator 01:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a gold star for TheronJ and his fantastic cleanup. This is the best possible outcome of an AfD. William Pietri 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 12:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Lung Wai Man

Appears to be insufficiently notable, and edit history suggests vanity. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Quoted as a spokesperson on a Korean news site, but that's all I see. Doesn't nearly meet WP:BIO and a definite WP:AUTO violation. Irongargoyle 23:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not sure how to handle this. Claims to be a chairman of the Southern Democratic Alliance, but that's not even a party, just a minor political org. Other than that he hasn't ran for anything so he's not notable in any other regard. ColourBurst 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've seen individuals of similar notability from the US and Europe pass AfDs with flying colors. I'd like to see some additional information about this guy to determine if he's really notable or not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disc Jockey News

Contested PROD. Delete as blatant WP:SPAM for a non-notable Internet newsletter that probably fails WP:WEB. Appears to be vanity from User:Dude Walker, who keeps inserting this into Newspaper and related articles, and added his own bio information to Dude Walker (not the same guy). --Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. Disc Jockey News is a hardcopy newspaper that is has been in operation since 2004. The reasons for insertion in the newspaper category is it's related category listing. It is/was my understanding that reference contributions were a matter of being thorough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude Walker (talk • contribs)

• Comment: My apologies. I've corrected the nomination above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinu, as for the deletion of bio information? How shall that be addressed. Since both have achievments within the broadcast and media fields, how do you suggest this be addressed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Walker (talk • contribs) 06:23, 9 Sep 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As it stands it reads as an advert only with far too many links Nigel ^(Talk) 09:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Kinu, Nigel, more or less puzzled.. This Mobile Disc Jockey industry is a growing industry. Currently there are only 3 specifc pubs that relate directly to the industry. Disc Jockey News, DJ Times & Mobile Beat. What changes would you suggest to reference content? Cross-references were an attempt to be thorough. Please advise. (unsure how to sign Dude Walker) Dude Walker 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Ahhh! Found it![reply]

• Delete per nom. Very closely resembles spam. Couldn't find evidence of notability. Author's strident defense of the article completely fails to address wikipedia policy, so I'm not convinced. My Alt Account 19:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like nn ad-spam to me. Marcus22 19:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lovely spam, wonderful spam. Danny Lilithborne 01:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless you can provide any reputable source for notability besides own sites Guyanakoolaid 09:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To All Concerned I've read the article(s) relating to WikiSpam. I can see how my contributions/inclusions have been misinterpreted. I was following help suggestions from Wikipedia that created this dialogue. Items shown in red indicate a term or article not yet present within Wikipedia. That prompted me to be more thorough and supply cross reference material that it appeared that Wikipedia needed. I find it ironic that assertions of SPAM or AD campaigns were created in part, by Wikipedia's "help" suggestions. I'm unsure what could be more credible/notable than a physical copy of the industry specific newspaper which anyone may freely obtain in a US mailbox or online.Dude Walker 18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per A7.. Shell ^babelfish 11:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goredeath

A band that has released one album that sold 970 copies doesn't seem to me to meet WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 05:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete CSD A7. Danny Lilithborne 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as per nom Leidiot 10:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Auschwitz wasn't bombed

This is not a topic for an encyclopedia article, phrased as a question. consider incorporating in auschwitz article or elsewhere Fourdee 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move/Merge: this is a well written, sourced article. The title is glaringly bad, but the content is good. --Daniel Olsen 06:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well written, notable work in progress. Guy Montag 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's going to be written up properly, which it isn't at the moment, and it'll be too long to merge anywhere by the time it's finished, because it's a big topic. As for the topic, it's encyclopedic enough for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has an article called "Why wasn't Auschwitz bombed?" by Michael Berenbaum. [33] If the nominator had read our article before nominating it, he'd have seen we use that as a source. And ours isn't phrased as a question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This link is not a proper Britannica article, it's a "sidebar". I have no idea where it would appear in a print version of the Britannica, under W for Why? The title sets a very bad precedent for wikipedia. The topic itself is dubious; the title is atrocious. Are we to entertain an article for every hypothetical what-if out there? This merits a paragraph in the Auschwitz or Holocaust articles, or rolling it into a more encyclopedic topic like Allied Response to the Holocaust. If we have this article, why not "Why Dachau Wasn't Bombed" etc. etc. etc. - "Why snoopy isn't drawn like Mickey Mouse" or how about "Why the sky is blue". No article should start with "why". Fourdee 01:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know where you get the idea it's a "what if" article. It doesn't ask "what would have happened if Auschwitz had been bombed?". It's an article that will summarize the literature on why the Auschwitz wasn't bombed, and it wasn't, so there's nothing hypothetical about it. It's a big topic in Holocaust history, and therefore encyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is Auschwitz significant and not the other camps? Shouldn't the topic of this be why no camps were bombed? This topic appearing in a *sidebar* of the Britannica does not lend credibility to it appearing as a main article here. We don't have the equivalent of a sidebar or sub-article, but I am positive this would never appear as a main article in the Britannica - again it would fall under W alphabetically which is ludicrous. Fourdee 03:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're here to reflect reliable published sources, and historians discuss why Auschwitz wasn't bombed for a number of reasons: (1) the Allies were asked to bomb it or the railway lines leading to it; (2) the numbers being killed there were known about — in May–July 1944, when the bombing discussions were at a height, 12,000 Jews a day were being taken to Auschwitz from Hungary alone; (3) the railway lines would have been easy to bomb, according to some historians; (4) there were a number of Allied sorties in that immediate area during that period. I don't know what you mean by a "sidebar." It's a full article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica by Michael Berenbaum. How can you be "positive it would never appear as a main article," when in fact it does? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Check the Britannica link again. It is clearly described as a "sidebar". If you've ever seen a print version of the EB, it is listed in alphabetical order. I don't believe you will find anything listed under "Why". In a similar vein, "Why did Germany Start World War II", "Why did Hitler invade Russia", "Why did the US delay entering the War" - these are a "big topics" - bigger topics than why Auschwitz wasn't bombed, yet they are included in appropriately titled articles. Why does Auschwitz get an article about why it wasn't bombed and not Dachau? I repeat, no article should start with "why" and no article should include a contraction like "wasn't" - articles titles should reflect a succinct topic, not a sentence.Fourdee 03:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure of the point of this; if you have a complaint about Britannica, you'll need to write to them. Their article is part of a series of articles called "Reflections on the Holocaust." It's listed under Auschwitz, question of bombing; and in the Reflections series, it's in part III, one of the articles in the Allied response to the Holocaust section. But as I said, I'm unclear about the difference that makes. You seem to be objecting to the title; I hope you didn't bring an AfD just because you didn't like a title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Still seems to be incomplete/a work in progress. Worth leaving it to see how it expands Bwithh 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the moment per those above. I'm not quite sure what it should be changed to, but the title should probably get changed somewhere along the line (I, for one, was expecting an essay rather than the article which is currently there). BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Why wasn't Auschwitz bombed?" is a big question in Holocaust history, which is why the EB has that article. I wanted to name it using the question, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica was able to do, but didn't because I anticipated precisely this problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but consider renaming. Perhaps Theories on why Auschwitz wasn't bombed. VegaDark 07:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Also keep the article's name per comment above concerning Encyclopaedia Britannica. This is how it is most known and is per wikipedia policy. Amoruso 09:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a significant historical controversy, with plenty of potential sources. I am surprised that it does not have an article yet. One thing though: as I say on the talk page, I would suggest a move to Auschwitz bombing controversy; or, at the very least, to Why Auschwitz was not bombed. The "wasn't" in the title is, in the words of Hannibal Lecter, unspeakably ugly to me. Batmanand | Talk 09:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unspeakably ugly... Well said. Irongargoyle 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well writen. its just the title which lets it down. Leidiot 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - soundly produced and presented article. BTLizard 11:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is encyclopedic material on this topic. --Ian Pitchford 12:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the Encyclopaedia Britannica. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very encycloedic, will be helpful to researchers, and per others above. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and VegaDark's suggestion. --Húsönd 18:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep....no question to that, for all above reasons, but I also agree (in fact, urge) that the title should be changed to something a little more "encyclopedic". TJ0513 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move to Auschwitz bombing debate. There are other acceptable alternatives suggested by other editors as well, but this is the version that I would prefer. Auschwitz bombing controversy for a second choice per Batmanand. Irongargoyle 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is question for military historians, specialists on logistics and What If fans. Encyclopedias do not contain What if Turks won battle of Lepanto stuff. This topic has been discussed several times on soc.history.what-if newsgroups on much higher quality that the text here. It is also not controversy, unless "controversy" became generic word for just anything. Pavel Vozenilek 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do agree that the word conflict is a bit harsh. This is why I prefer the alternate title of Auschwitz bombing debate. I still think we should keep though. Questions for military historians seem like the peak of encyclopedic matierial. I can't speak concerning your example of What if Turks won battle of Lepanto because I don't know the topic, but I think the question aspect of that hypothetical article is what would get it in trouble. Irongargoyle 04:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see what this has to do with a "what if" by the way. Amoruso 04:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What-if speculations are the primary inspiration for such question. Political charges are secondary. Pavel Vozenilek 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had read through several discussions about this topic on soc.history.what-if and the question has been researched in deep there, including technical details on logistics, decision processes of militaries and statistics. These discussions are huge, last for weeks and (mostly) based on qualified sources. Current article would be torn apart very quickly. If kept the article should be renamed to remove the question, to include the whole machinery of concentration camps and their infrastructure (to bomb railways has been considered and rejected) and "expert attention needed" label put on it. Pavel Vozenilek 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as per Irongarogyle and others. The article is sound, but the title is unencyclopedic. Lazybum 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the subject is most certainly notable enough for its own encyclopedia article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the others that the title is inappropriate and, at the least, the article should be renamed. Raul654 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - work in progress, but should be retitled per Batmanand. Ergative rlt 22:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move Tell me to get back to work! 04:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Whitehead

Article about alleged cult leader. Google search didn't yeild anything (that wasn't wiki derived). Even if the story were true, notability still questionable. Is this article a prank? In any case only cited defunct pub Silent News. Clearly afoul of WP:LIVING. Dr U 06:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I find no information about the subject. Possibly unverifiable. Shimeru 08:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, even if verified. --Ed (Edgar181) 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, tagged as such, article's creator insists on using it as an attack page. Of course, the subject is clearly NN as well. My Alt Account 09:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul archibald

Vanity (article was created by the article's subject), promotional and, despite the breathless prose, non-notable. The guy is a trumpet player in an orchestra. Good on 'im, but it's not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 06:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vanity. -- RHaworth 07:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. MER-C 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as passes WP:MUSIC, in that he's won major competitions. Article is, admittedly, a vanity piece however and needs attention. Also, it's a copyright violation of [34], so needs rewrite. --Oscarthecat 09:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:V. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Something very odd about that major competition he won, the "Toulon Prix de Concours". Based on google search for the competition, it seems only one person has ever won it, Paul Archibald, and all the search results look pretty much word-for-word like this article. Hmmmm. Fan-1967 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ale Jrb.—dustmite 15:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Error.com Advertising for nonnotable website which was started 8/29/06 per article; no Alexa ranking; author removed prod and prod2 tags w/o improving article. NawlinWiki 06:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - spammy. MER-C 06:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vanispamcruftisement Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 06:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Definitely not around long enough to have any notability. Klacquement 06:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 06:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, out of fairness. You see, wikipedia deleted my article about my web forum that encourages teens to join my MLM schemes, so... My Alt Account 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, paleoneologism. --- Deville (Talk) 03:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinergy

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic Dicklyon 06:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This one's hard. Weak keep for now, because of the sources and number of Ghits (3,750 [35]). Perhaps this could be merged somewhere?--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete zero hits on JSROR, one hit on ScienceDirect: the original article by György Doczi from 1986. That article gets all of 1 citation on ISI citation search, and Doczi overall gets about 30. Paleoneologism that never took off. After delete redirect to Dynegy, which is what most of the Google hits bring up. ~ trialsanderrors 03:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect, since all information has already been merged. --- Deville (Talk) 02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rockhurst University Undergraduate Programs

If people want a list of the undergraduate courses offered by a university, they should probably contact that university, rather than looking here. Wikipedia is not a university admissions office. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 06:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument could be used on practically any topic covered on Wikipedia. For example, if people want a list of products made by a company, they should contact that company. Wikipedia is not an advertisement for companies. Wikipedia is a place to let the public know about useful information. There is no reason a list of undergraduate degrees at Rockhurst University cannot be featured on this website, as similar lists are for other universities. If you would rather I placed the list in the article for Rockhurst, I would be willing to do that. Shaverc 06:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Rockhurst University as prose (i.e. in paragraph format) rather than as a list, so that it will take up less space. --Metropolitan90 16:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary list. Look at the university website if you want to know things like this. -- Necrothesp 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Bekoe

An anonymous editor at WP:AFC noted as follows: These articels seem to be part of a concerted hoax. Cursory Googling of all of them turns up no supporting evidence despite several superlative ("First", "best", "most") claims and one extremely precise statistic. All articels are totally unsourced. 68.39.174.238 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I would describe these articles as a walled garden of articles which attempt to support each other, but which find no verification elsewhere on the Internet. Substantially all Google hits for this person and the related subjects to be nominated below come from Wikipedia and its mirrors. --Metropolitan90 06:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also unverified, unsourced parts of this walled garden:
  • African Teachers In England Union
  • Malian Brain of the year
  • British Teachers of African Origin awards

--Metropolitan90 06:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: seems like almost a textbook definition of a walled garden. The entire thing reeks of hoaxosity, possibly vanity as well. Somewhere in Mali, Kenneth is going to be pissed. --Daniel Olsen 07:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well-researched nom, and special thanks to Metropolitan90 for wading through all this crud. My Alt Account 07:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to give credit where it's due, the research for this AfD was done by User:68.39.174.238, who I have since learned is an experienced editor who has declined to register despite having over 10,000 edits. --Metropolitan90 07:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, User:Stuartyeates was the one who started this train: He whacked all 4 of these articels with {{hoax}}. I listed them on AfC and Met took it from there. 68.39.174.238 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thanks for catching it.--Bookandcoffee 09:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unverifiable. Don't think the creator of said articles has made a serious edit yet, which would tend to suggest this is a hoax too. Ohconfucius 07:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It is verifiably a town in AP. --- Deville (Talk) 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tulluru

Unsourced possible vanity. Contested prod, removed without explanation. MER-C 06:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article is about a town or borough in India. Needs cleanup, but we have articles on smaller ones (eg. Duryea, Pennsylvania). Plenty of room for expansion, but then, it was just created. Give it some time. Shimeru 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I tried to expand the article. Could someone add the latitude and longitude? Named places are usually notable, even if they are small, and this has 8000 people. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite Article subject ok, but needs rewrite. The first (and defining) sentence is incomprehensible to someone who doesn't know Indian phrases - inappropriate for English language wikipedia Bwithh 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's about a town. How can it be vanity? Towns don't usually write articles! -- Necrothesp 01:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 02:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majur Bludd

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC: only released an EP, planning a first album and a world tour... Fram 06:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't verify the band's claim that their EP has been "on the radio regularly for almost a solid year" because I find zero ghits attempting to verify this. None of the rest establishes notability, so isn't worth me verifying... My Alt Account 07:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Major Bludd as a probable misspelling. JIP | Talk 09:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think that a redirect wouldn't work, as Major Bludd is a fictional character, and Majur Bludd is a non notable band, failing WP:MUSIC.
  • The redirect would work, because anyone who types "Majur Bludd" is probably going to search for the GI Joe character, not the band. JIP | Talk 15:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrites with many children

The major problem I can see with this list is that (as in the one listed a few days ago about "celebrity parents of twins") this is an indiscriminate collection of information. Granted all of these people are famous, but they're famous for directing movies, playing professional sport or being the dictatorial ruler of Uganda. Additionally, we may be dealing with a shaky definition of "celebrity", given some of the names included here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Strange listcruft - not to mention with a glaring spelling mistake in the title and a clearly too low "highest" entry (see Mohammed bin Laden as one example). I'm not sure what the point of this list is, since its comparing between people in different professions, cultures, religions, socio-economic status and not to mention era (e.g. avg. number of children much higher in Europe before full industrialization/introduction of contraception - this makes the Bach entry look odd (the only pre-20th century one on the list, I think)) - and childbearing isn't some kind of race. Bwithh 11:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - listcruft. And much of it, of course, unverifible without DNA testing. BTLizard 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply because there's no reason not to. My dad has five, maybe he can get on the list...  Daniel_123  ► ► 13:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Listcruft. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons listed above. However, I will also say (and yes this probably sounds sexist) but the notion of men fathering alot of children is not really notable or of encyclopedic merit. (And BTW, where's Shawn Kemp?) They can father children with many women and not miss a beat. Now for a woman to be on this list (especially the ones that had over 5), that is a bit more impressive since the physical demand of having a child and carrying for 9 months is more of an ordeal. But this is just a footnote in their main article page. Also, I will say that the "honorable mention" at the very bottom of the page is rather perverse. I don't anyone woman would feel having miscarriages is an "honorable mention". Agne 15:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft, so what if celebs have many kids? --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 18:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all deletes above. Listcruft, and terribly defined. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nintendude-esque list. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listcruft that falls into "who cares?" territory as well. 23skidoo 13:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, someone may care, but this list in unmaintainable and how many is "many" and how do we know how many children some people really have? some DNA testing to come? Carlossuarez46 20:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]